PEOPLE OF MI V EDWARD TORREZ BLAND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 226395
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 99-001877-FH
EDWARD TORREZ BLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Jansen and Gotham*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction for possession of less than 25 grams of
cocaine. MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Police officers conducting a traffic stop of a van being driven by defendant discovered a
plastic bag containing a small quantity of cocaine in the ashtray, under defendant’s burning
cigarette. Both defendant and the passenger in the van were charged with possession of cocaine.
On appeal, defendant asserts that he was denied due process of law because the prosecutor
elicited unobjected-to testimony regarding his prior drug usage.
This Court will review a claim of unpreserved error for plain error. See People v Grant,
445 Mich 535, 547-548; 520 NW2d 123 (1994). For relief to be warranted, there must have been
an error at trial, the error must have been clear and obvious, and the error must have affected the
substantial rights of the defendant. Id. at 548-549. The plain error rule extends to constitutional
as well as nonconstitutional error. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
To be admissible under MRE 404(b), bad acts evidence must be offered for a proper
purpose, the evidence must be relevant, and the probative value of the evidence must not be
substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55; 508
NW2d 114 (1993), amended 445 Mich 1205 (1994). The purpose underlying the rule is the fear
that a jury will convict the defendant inferentially on the basis of his bad character, rather than
because he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. People v Crawford, 458
Mich 376, 384; 583 NW2d 785 (1998).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Evidence of other bad acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show
that he acted in conformity therewith. It may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of
intent, preparation, knowledge, or absence of mistake. MRE 404(b)(1). Defendant’s knowledge
of the presence of cocaine was the central issue at trial, and the bad acts evidence was admissible
for that purpose. Had defendant objected to the other acts evidence, the trial court could have
given a limiting instruction. VanderVliet, supra. Defendant has failed to show plain error.
Defendant has not shown that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, because
an objection from counsel would not have affected the outcome of the case. People v Pickens,
446 Mich 298; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Roy D. Gotham
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.